On May 15, 10:14Â*am, bz wrote:
rbwinn wrote in news:14a9254a-5835-4483-b00d-
:





On May 15, 2:24�am, PD wrote:
On May 14, 11:31�pm, rbwinn wrote:

� � However, it defies all of the laws of physics and ma
thematics for
a train to shrink to a fraction of its length just because it is
moving.

What laws of physics and mathematics would that be?

In the interest of foreshortening the conversation, note that neither
the Galilean nor Lorentz transforms are laws of physics. Perhaps you
could start by listing a few laws of physics you know, and then select
out of that pool the ones you think are defied by having length be a
frame-dependent quantity.

While you're at it, note that kinetic energy of an object is a frame-
dependent quantity, even in Galilean physics. And note that energy
conservation is one of the laws you're looking for. This would be a
good opportunity to point out also why no laws of physics are violated
by this frame-dependence.

PD

Well, according to Einstein's interpretation of the Lorentz equations,
and also Lorentz's, one frame of reference actually shrinks relative
to the other. Â*Not only that, but the one that shrinks is also its own
size in its own frame of reference, and the other frame of reference
is shrinking. Â*So there are several things going wrong at once here..

....

What things are wrong?

Since [from the trains FoR] the strike at the front occurs first, followed
by the strike at the rear, AND [from the trains FoR] the track is
SHORTENED,
it should come as no surprise that to the observer on the train, the marks
on the track are closer together than the length of the train.
After all, the front of the train has passed the front mark by the time the
rear strike/mark is made.

--
Well, as I was saying, that is the scenario that scientists present.
The part I do not believe is where the little short train passes in
front of the observer by the track, and lightning strikes
simultaneously in his frame of reference , making two marks on the
track the length of the short little train which was smashed to that
length by the distance contraction.
Robert B. Winn